Social Construction & Proactive vs. Reactive Approaches

I am writing my essay to discuss Social Construction. Social Construction is a study of Theories In our modern society; developments in technology and science have driven the study of crime into new frontiers. While the definite study of crime dates back to earlier decades, these developments have put crime data and the study of it into the front position of our society. Criminologists dedicate their life to assessing, understanding, restraining, and helping lawmakers to stop criminal and deviant acts. Not all criminal acts are deviant, and equally all deviant acts are not criminal. Serial killers with the nature of their crimes cross both groups due to the violence connected with the crimes, the repetition of the crimes, and the deviant nature of most serial killers even though the certain deviance varies per killer. These can contain but are not limited to cannibalism, dismemberment, necrophilia, and aggression. Criminological Theories that began in the mid 1800’s have been advanced and tested over time. With each new advance in technology, the means of testing these theories become more exact. In this essay I will discuss the numerous Social Construction Theories that today’s criminal justice system practices to control and stop criminals such as serial killers from committing their crimes. These theories consist of the social structure, social class, social process, neutralization, social control, and labeling theories (Siegel, L., 2008). The first theory I will discuss is the Social Structure Theory. The Social Structure Theory reasons that the socioeconomic forces drive those in underprivileged financial situations to commit crime, and this being the reason for crime. This theory breaks down into three smaller theories, which are: Social Disorganization Theory, Strain Theory, and the Cultural Deviance Theory. Social disorganization theory primarily focuses on environmental conditions. Excessive unemployment and school dropout rates are a result of this problem in a neighborhood. Strain Theory suggests that conflict in the goals a person has and what actual means one has to attain that goal is the main reason for crime (Siegel, L., 2008). Richard Ramirez fits into this theory for the reason that he started his killing over disappointment that a woman did not have anything of value to steal which was how he supported himself. His first murder was just a burglary gone twisted. He then went on to the next year growing into a serial killer claiming twelve more lives in the period of one year (Montaldo, C., n.d.). Cultural Deviance Theory is due to burden and social separation of people in lower class areas improving their own subcultures, which do not follow to social rules. An example, dad is a drunk, and hangs out with other lower class drunks. These drunks think that it is perfectly normal to abuse their wives. Because they are all of the same association they reassure themselves that their behavior is normal. Though the Strain Theory might work in relation to some serial killers, generally, it does not appear that social structure theories work well in relation to all serial killers (Siegel, L., 2008). The next theory of a serial killer that I will discuss is the Social Class Theory (also known as the Anomie Theory). This group of serial killers opposes that social judgment causes awareness, which in turn causes crime. For example: the lower class worker feels stress because they cannot meet the expense of the things they need. They then turn to dealing drugs to reach the means to achieve social equity. The Social Class Theory is also broken down into three smaller theories, such as: Institutional Anomie Theory, Relative Deprivation Theory, and the General Strain Theory. The Institutional Anomie Theory states that because of our nonstop need to keep up the status quote the United States is full of social class. Relative Deprivation Theory states that...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...Socialconstruction; serial killers
Kaplan University
CJ266
11/20/2010
Professor Ayers
Madeline Michell
“Social science theory can be very complicated, and this gives rise to much disagreement. Nevertheless, theory is important, and sociologists and criminologists have made great strides in their analyses of criminal behavior and other aspects of criminal justice systems.” (Akers and Sellers_ Pg-97, Explanations of Criminal Behavior, 2003). Study of our theories in our present society, has improved in technology and science. This action has thrust the study of crime into a new division. While the current study of crime goes back to earlier years, these improvements have put crime data and the study of it into While the actual study of crime dates back to earlier decades, these advances have put crime data and the study of it into the forefront of our society. Criminologists devote their life to assessing, comprehending, restraining, and helping lawmakers to prevent criminal and deviant acts. In this essay I will address the multifarious socialconstruction theories that today’s criminal justice system utilize to control and prevent criminals such as serial killers from committing their crimes.
“These consist of the social structure, social class, social process, neutralization, social control, and labeling theories” (Siegel, 2007)....

...﻿Reactive/Proactive Patrols
In policing there are two types of patrol, reactive and proactive patrol. Reactive patrol is based on crimes after they are committed. Proactive patrol is based on preventing crime rather than responding to crimes after they were committed. If police departments adopted one type of patrol there would be consequences. If police departments adopted reactive patrols, then there would be no way to prevent crimes. Police would only show up after a crime was committed and there would be an increase in crime. There would be an increase of criminal activity, traffic accidents, and a decrease in community approval of police. If police adopted the proactive patrol, then there would be more patrol in problem areas where crime is higher than other areas. This type of patrol is good to prevent crime, but if adopted it would cause the community to have little approval of the police, because it could cause crimes to be all over instead of a specific area. It would also cause officers to target crimes instead of respond to calls about crimes. In my opinion, a police department would be better suited for criminal activity if they keep both types of patrol rather than adopt one type; it would make the department more conductive and community oriented.
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I certify that the attached paper is my...

...Traditional reactive policing involves three main patrol functions from an officer consisting of immediate response to calls, routine patrol, and follow-up on investigations (Department of Justice, 2009). Reactive policing is defined as a police officer responding to requests specific to a crime from individuals or groups within the community the officer serves that encompasses on immediate response to calls and follow-up criminal investigations. Reactive policing requires no initiative from the officer or the police department to target a specific area or problem within his or her patrol district on routine patrols, but is required so that an officer can facilitate a response in a timely manner to calls dispatched (Department of Justice, 2009).
Proactive policing involves the police officer acting on his or her own initiative to develop and retrieve information about crime within the community (Department of Justice, 2009). Reactive and proactive policing works together in some cases. An example would be when a police officer reactively responds to a call that has been dispatched can resolve the issue proactively by mediating between the parties involved (Department of Justice, 2009). A study showed that proactive policing resulted in more arrests, detention, and filing of reports than the use of reactive policing (Department of Justice, 2009).
The...

...critically analyse the socialconstruction of poverty by underlining the issues. In this essay I will attempt to explore how a social problem is ‘constructed’ and how poverty has been constructed into such a problem. It will explore how poverty is defined and how it has been considered as a deviation from the norm by discussing the distribution of power and how it influences the construction of a social problem, how cultural values play a part in the socialconstruction process and finally I will look at what policy responses have been formulated in response to poverty.
All references to service users and carers have been anonymised to indicate respect and maintain confidentiality, in keeping with the GSCC Code of Practice.
The term poverty is defined in the Oxford Concise Dictionary as ‘that of lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal’. This definition in appears to be a construction of what normality is and it suggests that to be in poverty is a deviation from the norm, it makes a suggestion that there are good and bad people and this deviation from the good is one aspect of how a social problem could be constructed. The deviation from the norm regarding poverty could suggest that people are poor through their own actions and to remedy this situation they should adopt more normal actions of self...

...
Being a reactive person is exactly how it sounds. You react to everything; it can be in a no mannerly way or a respectful way. For example, you panic if you’re late to class. You’re always waiting for something to happen, and then you respond. It sounds very easy, right? Well actually it’s the easy way of life. If you’re not trying to succeed as a person, and just go by the bare minimum you’re reactive. You’ll put things off till the last minute. This is not how you should live your life by.
On the other hand being proactive takes a lot more time but it helps you in the future. You take initiative. If something needs to be turned in on Friday you turn it in a couple days before hand. You make things happen. You’re an organized person. You set yourself goals for the future and have a plan on how you’re going to accomplish these goals. You’re always preventing problems instead of starting them. I know, seems complicated right?
A reactive person doesn’t not like change in their lives. They have a routine and don’t plan on changing it. Unlike a proactive person is always trying to change their lives for the better. Being proactive you help others learn from their mistakes, while being reactive you punish them for mistakes.
A reactive person is selfish and only cares about himself, but a proactive person puts others first and likes to...

...SocialConstruction of Serial Killers
Allan Beberniss
Deviance and Violence
CJ266-01 / 1301A
April 1st, 2013
In this essay we will cover the different theories that try to shed some light on how or what creates a serial killer. These theories include social structure, social class, social process, neutralization, social control and labeling theories. As it is nearly impossible to group all serial killers into any one theory, I will look at the similarities and differences between these theories to find some root concepts that are behind all of them as a whole.
First of all let’s examine social structure, social structure focuses on an individuals standing within the social community, their job, their financial situation, and their overall happiness with the level of success they have achieved will determine whether they will commit crime or not. Because higher levels of success exist within areas that have an abundance of jobs there are more people attracted to these areas. Where many people are present social labeling occurs. Within this social community walls are created to block social gain from certain ethnic, racial, or other labeled groups of individuals that the society does not perceive as deserving of gain. This in turn results in pursuing of criminal acts to achieve financial success....

...Social Control Theory vs. Social Learning Theory
Abstract
Social control theory and social learning theory are two theories that suggest why deviant behavior is chosen to be acted upon by some individuals and not others. Both take a different stance on the issue. Social control theory suggests people’s behavior is based on their bonds to society, if they have strong bonds to society they conform and if not they have a tendency to act out or become involved in criminal or deviant behavior. Social learning theory suggest that through vicarious learning people learn from observing others and based on what the observe make the choice of whether to copy those actions to obtain desired results or chose not to if the results they see are undesirable. The explanations of both theories are presented and a conclusion of why social learning theory is more acceptable on explaining the reasons people engage in delinquent behavior is presented.
Social control theory proposes that through socialization and social learning individuals form attachments to others and develop self control as they do not want to disappoint others (Hirschi &amp; Gottfredson, 1993). Social control theory purposes that there are the four elements that together determine the level of bond to society; attachment in which an...

...
CRM 3603 01
30 September 2013
Social Control Theory vs. Self-Control Theory
According to the idea of control theories, an individual who has for some reason or another cut ties with the “conventional order” so that he or she is now free to commit any criminal or deviant acts (Cullen & Agnew, 2011 P216). Travis Hirschi, in 1969, created the Social Bond Theory of crime, aka Social Control theory; two decades later he joined Michael Gottfredson to create the Self-Control Theory. It seems that, over time, Hirschi’s view on crime had changed, and “that his late[r] work was a marked departure from his earlier theorizing” (Cullen & Agnew, 2011 P202-203).
Hirschi’s theory of Social Control describes what he calls the “Elements of the Bond” that explain the “bond of the individual to society” (Cullen & Agnew, 2011 P217). The first element is attachment; the attachments that we as people form to others of society. Most people of society have “internalized the norms” of said society; meaning that these people (law-abiding citizens) have accepted the laws and norms of society and willingly conform (Cullen & Agnew, 2011 P218). Those who don’t, however, those who are “insensitive to the opinion of others” are not bound by societal norms and therefore “free to deviate” (Cullen & Agnew, 2011 P218). Hirschi proposes that when an individual is alienated from others in society, it is usually due to “active...